SMU: RELI-3302 - Final Exam Review

Providence

How does God get involved with God’s Creation.

Paul Helm

Concept: Providence. Determinism.
- Risky or Risk-free? You want a risk free god.

Catch 22

DeTemple says this all the time. Use it in a written response somewhere.

Meaning: a dilemma or difficult circumstance from which there is no escape because of mutually conflicting or dependent conditions

Creative-responsive love

Griffin - God's love has two dimensions: (1) Creative - God provides initial aims/possibilities for each occasion, and (2) Responsive - God feels and responds to what happens in the world. God both influences and is influenced by creation

Basinger

Concept: Providence
Philosophy: Middle knowledge or Molinism.

Middle knowledge - what free creatures WOULD do in any circumstance.

“A God with middle knowledge is much better able to exercise providential control in the world than a God with only “present knowledge.”

Middle Knowledge

Or Molinism. What free creatures WOULD do in any circumstance. God has laid out all options in advance, but chooses not to know which one will happen

Robert Adams

Providence:

Disagrees with Middle knowledge.

Adams: middle knowledge undermines libertarian freedom? If God knows with certainty what a person would freely choose in specific circumstances, and God creates those circumstances, then the outcome is effectively determined. The person's "freedom" becomes merely hypothetical - they can't actually do otherwise given the circumstances God chose to create.

J.R. Lucas

Concept: Providence

• Rugmaker - God is working with us.

• "risk-taking" God - contrary to Paul Helm

• Why it matters - Leaves possibility for human free will. Makes God vulnerable, but has power in that vulnerability.

• A God that loves us has to be vulnerable to us and work with us.

Rugmaker

J.R. Lucas analogy:

God is like a rugmaker who weaves a beautiful rug despite having threads (free human actions) that sometimes go in unexpected directions. God doesn't control every thread but works with the threads' movements to create a beautiful overall pattern. This illustrates how God can achieve providential purposes while respecting libertarian free will - God responds and adjusts rather than controlling everything from the start.

The analogy supports a "responsive" or "risk-taking" view of providence where God's skill is in adapting to free choices rather than determining them.

Cobb and Griffin

• Providence.

• What is God? Responsive, Persuasive, and Creative. LOVE. God has to feel our pain. Can’t can’t know everything if God isn’t willing to change.

• They don’t like a timeless God.

• A passible God. This is not a defect.

Miracles

Comes from Mirus - Surprising in a marvelous way.

Aquinas: Critical… Why would God need to set up a system where miracles need to happen?

Stephen T. Davis

• Philosophy - Miracles

• Hard and Soft Miracles.

• Hard miracles: Defy natural law - But, they happened. Think biblical.

• Soft Miracles: Within natural law (NOMOLOGICAL) but still unexplainable.

• Davis thinks that soft miracles are more agreeable than hard miracles.

• You can’t ask people to believe hard miracles.

Nomological

In relation to Miracles: Meaning within natural law.

David Hume

• Miracles.

• Rational people would choose to not believe in miracles because…

• The evidence is weak.

• People who are of weak mind are susceptible to believing miracles.

• They tend to happen in the past. They don’t happen recently.

J.L. Mackie

Concept: Miracles. Against them.

• Alternate explanations are much more likely.

• People having psychological breaks, or on drugs.

• The burden of proof is extremely difficult. You have to prove that the natural laws of the universe no longer apply in the case of a miracle.

Richard Swinburne

Concept: Miracles

• Argues that you can trust in testimonies of miracles because they can be a valid basis for belief.

• Swinburne posits that evidence from credible witnesses is essential to affirm the occurrence of miracles.

• You believe the testimony of others all the time.

• Higher standard towards religion shouldn’t be enforced.

Evil

Epicurus: If God is all-powerful, all knowing, benevolent, and evil exists, then God cannot exist. This paradox questions the nature of divine benevolence and the existence of evil in the world.

David Hume - Evil

Concept: Evil

God just isn’t as nice as us human think and want him to be. We are applying human experience and emotion to God.

Hume’s response to “Best Possible World”

I just included this because it’s funny.

Can't we imagine a world with less pain, fewer diseases, better-designed creatures?

Hume argues that the existence of suffering suggests this is not the best possible world, prompting skepticism about divine goodness.

Gottfried Leibniz

Concept: Evil

Argument: Best possible world: Means that this world, despite its evils, is the best one God could create. This is the best possible world because an all good, all powerful, all knowing god, created it. Leibniz argues that the existence of evil is necessary for greater goods and the overall harmony of creation and for free will. Evil is part of the system and God knows why. It’s an inconvenient world but anything else would be less than. Connect to Anselm.

Best Possible World

Leibniz: Best possible world: Means that this world, despite its evils, is the best one God could create. This is the best possible world because an all good, all powerful, all knowing god, created it.

J.L. Mackie - Evil

Argument: Leibniz doesn’t give God’s omnipotence enough credit.

Theodicy

Arguments that defend God in the face of evil.

Plantinga

Concept: Evil

Free will Defense.

Argument: Evil is the price we pay for moral freedom.

Evil is what free will hinges on.

“Creatures who are… Significant moral Choice.

You can be assured you are in the best possible world because every possible world has

Transworld Depravity

Evil

Plantinga

Depraved creatures capable of sin.

The idea that every possible world contains morally flawed creatures, impacting the realization of moral good and freedom.

Hick

Concept: Evil

Argument: Gondola Cat picture. The cat who is living on the ground actually learns. The gondola cat does not. Evil exists because for soul making and character development. We are working our way back to the likeness of God and this includes evil.

Irenaeus

References

Two kinds of Evils

Natural Evil

Rowe

Concept: Evil

Argument: Evidential argument. There is senseless evil in suffering. Fawn burning in the woods analogy. No theodicy can cover this evil.

M.M Adams.

Concept: Evil

Can you make a universal theodicy? She says NO. You have to argue within a tradition. Horrendous evils will be met with sufficient love. That’s how you make it make sense. Like a parent deciding to operate on a child.

Arguments Makie think are insufficient.

Ghali

Concept: Evil.
Argument: How muslim philosophers approach evil. Evil could potentially be punishment. It is beyond human comprehension so don’t waste your time.

Faith and Reason

Philosophers:

Definition:

Aquinas

Concept: Faith and Reason
Argument: There is a harmony. You were created in the likeness and image of God: You can reason your way to truth. Not everyone can reason their way to truth. You can rely on elders, parents, second order. You can learn something through revelation/scripture.

Pascal

Concept: Faith and Reason

Argument: The wager - There is no harm in believing in God. If you start to believe it you actually will. If God exists, you gain everything; if not, you lose nothing.

Clifford

Concept: Faith and Reason

Argument: Ship builder. It is wrong to believe anything without sufficient evidence. Every place, everywhere, you must have empirical evidence. Belief can lead to harm, and it is a moral duty to base beliefs on evidence. Disagrees with pascal.

James

Concept: Faith and Reason
Argument: Disagrees with clifford. You can’t go around proving everything in your life. You can make a leap of faith based on personal experience. Belief is justified if it helps you achieve your goals and brings fulfillment.

Kierkegaard

Faith and Reason

Truth is subjectivity: Belief should be scary. It involves a personal commitment that may not be rationally justified, emphasizing the individual's relationship with the divine. Relationships can’t be rational.

Evans

Concept: Faith and Reason

Argument: Faith and reason can coexist through dialogue.

PDF

Concept: Religion and Science

Knowledge is knowledge. We acquire knowledge the same so we can discuss across science and theology.

Gould

Concept: Religion and Science

Argument: Non-overlapping magisteria.

Dawkins

Religion and Science

Science discredits religion. Religion makes scientific claims. The biblical miracles are scientific in nature. NOMA is hopelessly naive. They do overlap dude.

Dempski

Concept: Religion and Science Argument: Wants to put them together through Intelligent design:
CONTINGENCY.
COMPLEXITY.
SPECIFICATION.

Kitcher

Concept: Religion and Science
Argument: Worries about Dempski’s over-reliance on statistics. Makes too much of a leap. He still has questions.

Plantinga - Religion and Science

Naturalism is incompatible with scientific accounts of evolution. Believes in evolution but that it was set in motion by God. You can’t think your way to evolution. You can’t trust your own reasoning which is the basis of naturalism.

Naturalism

Polkinghorne

Concept: Religion and Science

Argument: Putting it all together. Religion and science. Kenosis - God unfolding in the world. God is creative enough to give religion and science and believes that both can coexist harmoniously. The WHY?

Kenosis

Dennett

Concept: Religion and Science

Wanted to scientifically study religion because it might go bad.

Religious Diversity

Exclusivist: There is only one true argument. Your religion.

Inclusivist: There is still one true path, but there is grace extended to those

Pluralist: There are lots of ways to getting to truth…

Griffiths

Exclusivity: Necessary because it gives boundaries and community.

Rahner

Inclusivity: Anonymous Christians would accept christianity if presented with it. They just haven’t yet.

Hick

Religious Diversity

Argument: A benevolent god wouldn’t create one system. Ultimate reality is the thing we’re all after. If you are a morally upright person you will get there.

Foyerbach

Concept: Athiest Approach

Argument: God is our projection of love and kindness. Cut out the middleman and just be a good person. People are now only doing things out of fear. You’re lying to yourself.

Martin

Concept: Atheistic approach.
There is no way god is all those things people say he is.Conflicts between divine attributes. They are contradictory and impossible.

Draper

Evidential argument for evil. Evil can’t be rectified. There is no good that can overcome the existence of evil in the world, making it a significant challenge to the belief in a benevolent deity. Thus, atheism.

Choices of worldview: Naturalistic worldview vs. Supernaturalist view. Holy shit listen to this back tf?

Morality

Plato: Asked “Is something good because god loves it? Or, does god love it because it is good? Answer: They are too entangled.

Blake

Three choices of the God you should obey:

You don’t want Zeus (Passible, commands bad things) or Nobo Dady (only has power).

You want the God of Just desert.

Aquinas - Morality

Natural law: Your own sense of morality if not enough, elders, if not enough, consult scripture.

Menti

Rub for morality: The environment people are in. Could call you to be the best version of yourself or a corrupt version. It is where you get

Sartre

You need to be moral without religion. The Angst. Anger, forlorness, despair